[Al Masters]

Cliff notes please

Rudy is unable to understand simple concepts of playing with safe operations where not having to be concerned or root against what Ying Ding Dong bet in Malasya because it may affect my payout.

examples of what ifs... he wants me to explain to him how if all players always
win he or me or you can get paid and about playing with books that lose money.

Well rudy...Good books don't lose in the long run bad books do i stay away from those. and you wanting to
know what if all players won all the time,well thats not ever ever going to happen
so it's a non issue.

Like asking me if pinny is safe if a meteor hits.

[billysink]

highly rated by who?

wsex was highly rated

WSEX did not implode on a market run.

[Smoke]

highly rated by who?

wsex was highly rated

I think sbr has them high I know eog does

[Smoke]

Rudy is unable to understand simple concepts of playing with safe operations where not having to be concerned or root against what Ying Ding Dong bet in Malasya because it may affect my payout.

examples of what ifs... he wants me to explain to him how if all players always
win he or me or you can get paid and about playing with books that lose money.

Well rudy...Good books don't lose in the long run bad books do i stay away from those. and you wanting to
know what if all players won all the time,well thats not ever ever going to happen
so it's a non issue.

Like asking me if pinny is safe if a meteor hits.

Thanks

[RudyRuetigger]

guys want examples

i give examples

then they say, oh those dont count

[billysink]

guys want examples

i give examples

then they say, oh those dont count

Give us examples of a book that went belly up, could not pay because of a market run, that did not have more flags than a fukkin Easter parade.

Not BI, even you knew it was a bad risk.

Not WSEX, it imploded from within and the 3 headed monster stole or misused the funds.

Give us one that fukked players because they all won.

[Fidel_CashFlow]

I was a fukkin member of WSEX.com

it was one of my 3 books.

Pissed about that situation still .

Billy bout to get silly up in here

[billysink]

I was a fukkin member of WSEX.com

it was one of my 3 books.

Pissed about that situation still .

Billy bout to get silly up in here

Nah, Im good bets.

Fukkin Alan Stanford got your money under a rock in Antigua with the rest of his fukkin zillion dollars.

[RudyRuetigger]

Give us examples of a book that went belly up, could not pay because of a market run, that did not have more flags than a fukkin Easter parade.

Not BI, even you knew it was a bad risk.

Not WSEX, it imploded from within and the 3 headed monster stole or misused the funds.

Give us one that fukked players because they all won.

did i say it had to have fukked players?

[Smoke]

What about rebatewager

[RudyRuetigger]

and ill just keep going back to sia

its a good square book. if large amounts of cash were being lost there, you could also be betting large amounts on off numbers

[billysink]

did i say it had to have fukked players?

Rudy you built your whole arguement on what if everyone won and I couldn't get paid.

Pretty sure I couldn't get paid falls under the fukked category, correct me if I am wrong here.

I want one example of a book that couldn't pay someone because everyone won. Not one that fukked everyone due to bad management, RICO/DOJ or because it was their intent from the get go.

Tell me one book that did that without anyone having a hundred and twenty fukkin two warning flags

[Fidel_CashFlow]

Nah, Im good bets.

Fukkin Alan Stanford got your money under a rock in Antigua with the rest of his fukkin zillion dollars.

I guess Im overreacting a bit when I say im still pissed. I didnt have a ton of money on there, but it was over a grand.
I remember when party poker packed up and flew away.... now those bitches had a ton of my money on there
Or what I consider a ton of money anyways. Makes me feel better knowing dude is spending a century in prison though



Allen Stanford (born March 24, 1950) is a former prominent financier and sponsor of professional sports who is serving a 110-year prison sentence,^[2] having been convicted of charges that his investment company was a massive Ponzi scheme and fraud.
He contributed millions of dollars to politicians in both Antigua and the United States.^[6]

[billysink]

and ill just keep going back to sia

its a good square book. if large amounts of cash were being lost there, you could also be betting large amounts on off numbers

Nope, you would be shown the door or limited to marbles.

Not a good example, pretty well run establishment.

[RudyRuetigger]

Rudy you built your whole arguement on what if everyone won and I couldn't get paid.

Pretty sure I couldn't get paid falls under the fukked category, correct me if I am wrong here.

I want one example of a book that couldn't pay someone because everyone won. Not one that fukked everyone due to bad management, RICO/DOJ or because it was their intent from the get go.

Tell me one book that did that without anyone having a hundred and twenty fukkin two warning flags

do you even realize you are wanting me to a) name a book that couldnt pay because everyone won and b) didnt have bad management

do you see how those 2 go hand in hand? if you cant fukking pay because players won, ofcourse you have bad fukkin management.

[RudyRuetigger]

Nope, you would be shown the door or limited to marbles.

Not a good example, pretty well run establishment.

im convinced you dont read. i just said it was a good book...and you even quoted the post of me saying it.... and now you say not a good example, pretty well run establishment. earlier in this thread you were telling me you wouldnt go to these smaller books.

you cant even make up your mind as to what your stance is

that example is how if everyone was losing big, the amount winners could bet would also be bigger.

[billysink]

do you even realize you are wanting me to a) name a book that couldnt pay because everyone won and b) didnt have bad management

do you see how those 2 go hand in hand? if you cant fukking pay because players won, ofcourse you have bad fukkin management.

Very good Rooty, finally you get my point. Now would you as an industry vet know that said joint had bad management?

Just yes or no.

[RudyRuetigger]

Very good Rooty, finally you get my point. Now would you as an industry vet know that said joint had bad management?

Just yes or no.

this isnt my point. you are trying to argue about closed books only. my argument works for all books. reread my sia example.

[billysink]

im convinced you dont read. i just said it was a good book...and you even quoted the post of me saying it.... and now you say not a good example, pretty well run establishment. earlier in this thread you were telling me you wouldnt go to these smaller books.

you cant even make up your mind as to what your stance is

that example is how if everyone was losing big, the amount winners could bet would also be bigger.

Rooty read the lines, not between them. No where did I say I wouldn't play at SIA. In fact I do hold an account there. What I am saying is don't use SIA as an example of a book that would be likely have over exposure and be supportive of your theory.

[RudyRuetigger]

Rooty read the lines, not between them. No where did I say I wouldn't play at SIA. In fact I do hold an account there. What I am saying is don't use SIA as an example of a book that would be likely have over exposure and be supportive of your theory.

you are right, they dont have over exposure. that is the point when it comes to sia. it is the same point as pinny, etc. except sia is one that you actually can affect. and my theory is if more people lost more money at sia, they would then raise the amount a person can win before they are booted.

[Ra77er]

[billysink]

this isnt my point. you are trying to argue about closed books only. my argument works for all books. reread my sia example.

Fukk I knew yes or no was too complicated.

Your argument was clearly based on "what if everybody wins". I wouldn't get paid.

I simply want an example of a book, without a shit load of baggage and red flags, does not have the ability to manage or limit exposure to your hypothesis with the potential inability to pay.

Not SIA, they manage there exposure to the max.

Gimme one.

And then give me the weeks where everyone wins to push the envelope.

Gotta make sure I'm funded.

[InTheDrink]

roody and billy gonna go at it all night making the same arguments back and forth unrale

[billysink]

you are right, they dont have over exposure. that is the point when it comes to sia. it is the same point as pinny, etc. except sia is one that you actually can affect. and my theory is if more people lost more money at sia, they would then raise the amount a person can win before they are booted.

Rooty I can tell you ain't write one fukkin ticket. If a player loses are you gonna raise his fukkin limits or are you gonna go down to the end of the bar to the dude who kill you every Tuesday and fukkin raise his?

Rooty your losing steam. Give yourself a fukkin tap pal.

[billysink]

roody and billy gonna go at it all night making the same arguments back and forth unrale

Nope. Rooty just likked his foot in post 125.

Rooty never made book. Billy may, at some point in time, possibly have.

[Ra77er]

Nope. Rooty just likked his foot in post 125.

Rooty never made book.

[RudyRuetigger]

Fukk I knew yes or no was too complicated.

Your argument was clearly based on "what if everybody wins". I wouldn't get paid.

I simply want an example of a book, without a shit load of baggage and red flags, does not have the ability to manage or limit exposure to your hypothesis with the potential inability to pay.

Not SIA, they manage there exposure to the max.

Gimme one.

And then give me the weeks where everyone wins to push the envelope.

Gotta make sure I'm funded.

like i said it is impossible to say all players won but it was well management. any book i name that lost to players, you will just say it was poorly ran. both are fukkin true.

betislands was poorly ran, but if people did fukkin lose there...you could be making a ton betting off the half points they offer.

bad management + players winning = book closed

bad management + players losing = you have a chance, see sportsbook.ag

good management + players winning = out of business, see any book you want. betjam is easiest. you can say they didnt want to get involved in doj. but why? because they werent making enough off of players losses for them to risk it.

good management + players losing = any good shop now

my original post says players losing helps me, and it is 100% true. im still waiting for you to name 1 book that is open that repeatedly loses. if you cant, which you cant, then my statement is true.

and its not like i want someone here to lose all their fukkin cash just so i have a chance to hit a 10 teamer. i was just throwing a stupid post up, but it is infact true.

[RudyRuetigger]

roody and billy gonna go at it all night making the same arguments back and forth unrale

i told him a page ago we will be going in fukkin circles

[billysink]

like i said it is impossible to say all players won but it was well management. any book i name that lost to players, you will just say it was poorly ran. both are fukkin true.

betislands was poorly ran, but if people did fukkin lose there...you could be making a ton betting off the half points they offer.

bad management + players winning = book closed

bad management + players losing = you have a chance, see sportsbook.ag

good management + players winning = out of business, see any book you want. betjam is easiest. you can say they didnt want to get involved in doj. but why? because they werent making enough off of players losses for them to risk it.

good management + players losing = any good shop now

my original post says players losing helps me, and it is 100% true. im still waiting for you to name 1 book that is open that repeatedly loses. if you cant, which you cant, then my statement is true.

Rooty you are a trip. You wanna use BI as an example and then you wanna remind erryone that you fukkin warned them.

Rooty there is no such animal as a book that remains open that repeatedly loses.

There is no animal as a book that repeatedly loses at all. There is no such animal as players winning enough to create that scenario.

All of that goes away with good management, or it is flagged as fukk or buyer beware.

Why the fukk a small potatoes guy like you hypothesize about some shit that does not exist is beyond me.

You got a better shot of explaining why the fukkin unicorn only lives in Boston or some shit,

[BigDeem5]

Sinker, pretty sure I laid this out in about the 4th post. Rudy is wrong here.

[billysink]

Sinker, pretty sure I laid this out in about the 4th post. Rudy is wrong here.

Actually Rooty is hypothetically correct about some shit that don't exist is more like it.

Rooty want the winners limits raised when the losers lose. Just about explains his take on the whole deal.

Books may just be a little sharper than Rudy give them credit for.

Everyone of them know exactly what the fukk they are doing, they are all fukkin crooks.

[RudyRuetigger]

Rooty you are a trip. You wanna use BI as an example and then you wanna remind erryone that you fukkin warned them.

yea, in my opinion, given the lines and what i heard, i thought the players would win.

Rooty there is no such animal as a book that remains open that repeatedly loses.

exactly, that was my main fukkin simplistic point in the thread actually.

There is no animal as a book that repeatedly loses at all. There is no such animal as players winning enough to create that scenario.

All of that goes away with good management, or it is flagged as fukk or buyer beware.

right, or it closes/merges with another

Why the fukk a small potatoes guy like you hypothesize about some shit that does not exist is beyond me.

what the fukk else do i have to do pal

You got a better shot of explaining why the fukkin unicorn only lives in Boston or some shit,

this will be my next thread. ill see you in it about next wednesday. if it did exist, i would have to guess it would be in the midwest though.

[RudyRuetigger]

Actually Rooty is hypothetically correct about some shit that don't exist is more like it.

Rooty want the winners limits raised when the losers lose. Just about explains his take on the whole deal.

Books may just be a little sharper than Rudy give them credit for.

Everyone of them know exactly what the fukk they are doing, they are all fukkin crooks.

i prefer theoretically correct about all of it.

[billysink]

Rooty good peoples.

Billy just fukkin peoples.

Too many miles.

[RudyRuetigger]

i disagree with many people in my life on many different topics, but once that topic is over, i fukkin move on. if you hate everyone you disagree with on every single topic i doubt youd have any friends. topics i do not mind disagreeing on and heated debates, but as i said the asian comment was uncalled for. so you are right al, i am embarrassed about that as i have already stated.

i gotta fukkin sleep now